Anyone benchmarking inference latency for onboard VLA models?

[nicole57]

I'll believe the stronger version of that claim when it's independently verified. Domain randomization - varying friction, mass, sensor noise, and even visual textures during training - is one of the more reliable tricks for improving sim-to-real transfer, but overdoing it can make training slower to converge and produce overly conservative policies. Cross-embodiment training (training one policy across data from multiple different robot bodies) has shown some real transfer benefits for high-level behaviors, but low-level control (exact joint torques, timing) still tends to need embodiment-specific fine-tuning.

[jhansen]

@nicole57 This is exactly the kind of context I was looking for. Zero Moment Point (ZMP) control keeps the robot's center of pressure within its support polygon and has been the classical backbone of bipedal walking for two decades - it's robust and well-understood, but tends to produce a somewhat conservative, flat-footed gait compared to more dynamic approaches. Cross-embodiment training (training one policy across data from multiple different robot bodies) has shown some real transfer benefits for high-level behaviors, but low-level control (exact joint torques, timing) still tends to need embodiment-specific fine-tuning.

[zoeanderson]

@jhansen Ran into exactly this myself. Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models like RT-2, OpenVLA, and Physical Intelligence's pi0 unify a vision-language backbone with an action-output head, letting a robot map a camera image and a text instruction directly to motor commands instead of hand-coding separate perception and planning stages. Model predictive control (MPC) is still very much alive in production humanoids, often working alongside or underneath learned policies - MPC handles short-horizon dynamically-consistent trajectory optimization while learned components handle perception, task-level decisions, or recovery behaviors that are hard to hand-model.

[barbara50]

This matches what I've seen too. A lot of what reads as 'full autonomy' in public demos is closer to a mix of scripted state machines, teleoperation for the hardest sub-tasks, and autonomous execution for the easier, well-rehearsed parts - transparency about this mix varies a lot between companies. Model predictive control (MPC) is still very much alive in production humanoids, often working alongside or underneath learned policies - MPC handles short-horizon dynamically-consistent trajectory optimization while learned components handle perception, task-level decisions, or recovery behaviors that are hard to hand-model.

[jessica_faro]

@barbara50 Genuinely curious - Sim-to-real transfer still commonly breaks on contact dynamics - friction, restitution, and deformable/compliant surfaces are the hardest things to model accurately in simulation, so policies trained purely in sim often need real-world fine-tuning specifically around contact-rich tasks. Reminds me a bit of the early drone hobbyist scene, honestly.

[jonathan.rao1]

@jessica_faro Worth being a little skeptical of the marketing angle here. ROS2 remains common in research and early-stage products for its tooling and ecosystem, but a number of production humanoid companies run custom, more tightly-optimized middleware for their real-time control loops, using ROS2-like tooling mainly for development, visualization, and non-real-time subsystems. Balance-recovery controllers are usually evaluated with push-recovery tests (a known, repeatable lateral push) in demos, but real-world robustness also depends on recovering from unstructured events like uneven flooring, unexpected contact, or a dropped payload shifting the center of mass mid-stride - which is a much harder, less demo-friendly test.

[george92]

@jonathan.rao1 I'll believe the stronger version of that claim when it's independently verified. 'Zero-shot sim-to-real' rarely means literally zero real-world tuning in practice - it usually means the policy transfers well enough to be usable with only calibration and minor safety-limit adjustments, rather than needing a full additional training phase on hardware. Balance-recovery controllers are usually evaluated with push-recovery tests (a known, repeatable lateral push) in demos, but real-world robustness also depends on recovering from unstructured events like uneven flooring, unexpected contact, or a dropped payload shifting the center of mass mid-stride - which is a much harder, less demo-friendly test.

[lbianchi]

@george92 Yeah, this tracks with what I've read as well. Whole-body control (WBC) formulates locomotion and manipulation as a single optimization problem across all joints simultaneously, respecting contact constraints and task priorities - it's more general than ZMP-only approaches but is computationally heavier and harder to tune.

[emma_whit]

@lbianchi Can I ask a dumb follow-up - Physical Intelligence's pi0 pairs a smaller pretrained vision-language backbone with a separate flow-matching 'action expert' module, which is one way to get fast, high-frequency action output without needing the whole giant language model to run at control-loop speed.

[kim37]

Slight correction, though the overall point stands: Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models like RT-2, OpenVLA, and Physical Intelligence's pi0 unify a vision-language backbone with an action-output head, letting a robot map a camera image and a text instruction directly to motor commands instead of hand-coding separate perception and planning stages.